As a medievalist, I have been bemused and frustrated by the way Brown's novel has been taken as historical fact since I first had the displeasure of struggling through his turgid prose in late 2004. Since then I have found myself in discussions/debates with Da Vinci fans regarding the many and various historical errors in the novel both online and in 'real life'. In many of those online discussions I have pointed people to online resources on the subject as well as to the small library of books on the novel's claims. I have often recommended your The Da Vinci Hoax and several of the online articles by yourself and Sandra Miesel, particularly "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into The Da Vinci Code".

Inevitably, the response to these recommendations has often been that you and writers like you are simply "dupes of the Vatican" (something Darrell Bock would, no doubt, find highly amusing) and that you are simply defending your faith because you are scared of the 'revelations about history' that the Code supposedly makes. These people usually assume that I am a Christian as well and are often confused when I explain that I'm an atheist.

Frustrated by this, I set out about 18 months ago to produce an online resource which examines the claims made in the DVC from a purely historical, religiously-neutral perspective. This has been partly to counter the idea that only Christians disagree with this novel's silly claims, partly to show that religious critics like yourself make arguments which are soundly based on historical research and partly to provide a resource that non-Christians can regard as 'unbiased'.

The site is not fully complete, but the 'Chapter by Chapter' analysis of the 'historical' claims made in the novel is up (weighing in at 45,000 words in total), along with other resources.

While I appreciate that your beliefs and mine are diametrically 'opposed', I hope you might find my site useful and would also hope that you might feature it on your blog. I have already received enthusiastic feedback on it from Christians, who have thanked me for the respectful way I have handled sensitive religious subjects. They've also mentioned they've found it useful to direct people to a 'non-religious' site, to counter the regular accusations of 'bias'.

As a regular contributor to various online fora on history, I soon began to see the impact this novel was having on peoples' perceptions of history. I saw people making claims about the Gnostic gospels, early Christianity, the Emperor Constantine, the Knights Templar and Jesus which were not supprted by the historical evidence but came directly from their reading of this novel. Eventually I got tired of repeating myself in countering these claims and decided that an online resource comparing the assertions in the novel to the evidence could be a useful project.

Be sure to check out this excellent resource, especially the "Chapters" section, which provides a running commentary on the novel's many errors, chapter by chapter. And don't miss the "Fiction?" page, which explains why an atheist would bother to spend time responding to a work of fiction.

BTW, here is part of my response to Mr. O'Neill's initial e-mail:

I especially appreciate your work because I am so tired of hearing that Christians who are responding to TDVC are "angry" or "afraid" or "weak in their faith" or "narrow minded." As Sandra Miesel has noted on many occasions, even if she was atheist and had little or no interest in the theological/religious issues involved, she would still be offended by Brown's novel because of how it purports to be based on fact, has been accepted as a well-researched work by many reviewers and readers, and yet is filled with errors, howlers, and outright falsehoods about verifiable historical facts. And the way that Brown was initially touted as being some sort of great researcher is incredibly pathetic. And the shrugs and "so what?" attitudes that have accompanied the movie have been equally exasperating.

I also appreciate the kind remarks made on your site about our book. Obviously, as you note, we do come from different perspectives and, in a different time and place, we might have a rousing (and civilized, I think) debate about theism and atheism. But just as I know that many Christians do have a blind and poorly informed faith, I also know that many atheists and agnostics do indeed respect and value truth. And so your efforts to educate people about the many historical errors of TDVC is greatly appreciated.

I've been meaning to write a bit on this question, but have been spared some of the time and effort by Greg Wright, who wrote this short but insightful review of TDVC movie when it first came out (oh so many days ago). Wright (who is not a Catholic, btw) observed the following:

Earlier today, MSNBC carried an AP story
which reported that Ron Howard's movie "subtly softens" the material of
Dan Brown's book. The Associated Press couldn't have it more wrong.

Yes,
Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon does find some new dialogue in his mouth
courtesy of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, words that at least play
devil's advocate with Ian McKellen's Leigh Teabing. But in the end, the
cinematic Langdon becomes much more of a true believer than does his
literary counterpart.

Three major innovations introduced by Howard's movie:

First,
his film portrays Opus Dei and the "shadow council" of the Vatican as
really being in cahoots, really conspiring to kill people in the name
of God, really trying to supress intellectual inquiry, really turning
its back on truth and righteousness. In short, Ron Howard turns the
Catholic Church into a genuine villain. Shameful.

Second, the
movie further fabricates ancient history, making the charge that
history is unclear whether the Roman Empire or the Christians were the
first agressors. Please!

Third, and most importantly, the film
invests significant energy in validating the Magdalene myth. While in
Brown's book Marie Chauvel basically leaves the existence of the
Sangreal documents and Magdalene's bones to the world's imagination,
Howard has Langdon and Neveu discover plenty of material evidence to
back up the claim.

Where's the mystery that feeds the soul?
Where's the adventure? You'll have to find it in the book, I'm afraid.
There's no codebreaking here, just polemic.

These are excellent points — but they were missed (or ignored) by most other reviewers of the movie. For many reviewers, the unforgiveable sin of Howard's flick is that it is ponderous, boring, silly. But Wright is absolutely correct that movie, just like the novel, is much more about polemics than storytelling. Which is one reason the storytelling is so ponderous, boring, silly. Which, happily, blunts some of the polemics, but hardly exonerates the filmmakers from going to such lengths to disdainfully (or is it "dis-Dan-fully"?) attack the Catholicism, historical fact, and commonsense.

GodSpy.com's John Murphy (who also lives here in Oregon) did not read TDVC, but saw the movie. He was less than impressed:

It’s not that the movie is bad. It might have been more entertaining if it was. Instead, DVC has that depressing kind of competency which signals lack of conviction married to bald-faced greed. The sets are big and expensive, but nothing interesting happens in them. The actors are top-notch, but the script doesn’t supply them with human beings to play.

Yes, indeed. Say what you will about Ron Howard, he was honest when he said he would be true to the novel. And so he was, making a movie that is tedious, pretentious, bloated, annoying, and just as arrogant and filled with error as Dan Brown's book.

DVC is more than anti-Catholic, though. Any movie with a plot that hinges on Christ having married Mary Magdalene and spawned a line of dissolute French monarchs (oh, and was also definitely not God) safely falls within the parameters of a more general kind of anti-Christianity. However, DVC is also anti-plausibility, anti-character development, anti-subtlety, and anti-fun. So I’m all for anything this movie is against. Frankly, I’m more offended by the ways in which the film insults my intelligence than I am by the ways in which it insults my faith. ...

If the movie is anything like the book (and I’ve heard it’s a faithful adaptation), then I am truly worried about the state of literacy in the world. What happened to the days when Dickens was hugely popular? Or Shakespeare could pack’em in at the Globe? I enjoy a good beach read, like anybody. But there is suspend-your-disbelief fun and then there is brain-frying stupidity. There are moments in this movie that border on self-parody.

I think it's safe to say that Shakespeare and Dickens aren't part of the vocabulary of most fourteen to twenty-two-year-old kids these days. I hardly had a top-notch public education, but in my senior English class I had to read Macbeth, Ivanhoe, My Name Is Asher Lev, Brave New World, and excerpts from Hemingway, Ambrose Pierce, and a few others. My English teacher retired soon thereafter and eight years later my sister was taught English literature by a young teacher obsessed with Bram Stoker's Dracula — to the degree his class spent an entire semester on that single book. Anyhow, I am inclined to think that the "brain-frying stupidity" of TDVC novel/movie are so successful because such stupidity has become the genius of our time. And heaven help anyone who announces that the emperor is both naked and stupid. As Chesterton wrote in one of his bazillion columns: "These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." Even when those creeds involve little more than mocking the Creed...

Though thoroughly anti-Christian, it is such a bad movie it can’t even get the bigotry right. ...

Nevertheless, the movie pulls off what I would have thought was next to impossible: it is both mind-numbingly boring and stridently anti-Christian. ...

As for recognizing blasphemy, we hear the objection, “But it’s only
fiction.” Would the same defense be offered if Hollywood produced The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Satanic Verses?
Furthermore, if Ron Howard had wanted to make a fast-paced murder
mystery, there are many scenes he could have cut, all to the movie’s
advantage. Scenes of a deranged, nude, sadomasochistic “monk” praying
before a crucifix as preparatory to committing murder, intentionally
mock Christian faith, and Ron Howard’s decision to include them shows
that he shares Dan Brown’s contempt for Christianity. Any normal
Christian would be offended. That many will not be offended is an
indication of the extent to which our society has become
post-Christian. ...

And the coup de grace:

A society incapable of recognizing blasphemy against the God that 80%
of its citizens claim to worship, is a post-Christian society lacking
self-respect. Those without self-respect will be incapable of seeing
why their fellow citizens deserve respect. Such a society becomes
capable of believing and tolerating almost anything if it contributes
to comfort and demands no sacrifice. This is not a mark of
sophistication or virtue; it’s evidence of profound decadence.

That's the question posed on this Yahoo! forum and here are some of the erudite and thoughtful answers:

• We can ask this question forever, but the truth is, no-one will ever really know cause no-one can prove either beyond a shadow of a doubt.

• I think the code is right

• I think its too late. too many people have gotten carried away. Its a book. It has some ideas and theories. Thats all. Its not a book that can change the world. And the only reason why its effecting the Christian faith is because they are taking it way too personal.

• It is a book.It is not right or wrong

• who cares! the story is good!

And the winner:

• Who r we 2 decide? ultimately in time 2 the truth will be revealed. just wait n watch. Thou alot of details in da book make u wonder (the priory of zion, the templars knights, the blood of jesus cud it have meant a bloodline?) ... After all jesus walked this earth as a human n definatley had human needs...

Hmmm. I sense a common theme in many of the "answers": We really cannot know what happened. There's no way to find out the truth about Jesus. We can't figure out the truth nor should we try to push it on others.

Coincidentally (ha!), that general notion comes through loud and clear (and heavy-handedly) in the movie, which has the main characters making absurd assertions and then, in the next breath, opining about how the most important thing is not knowing the truth (since you can't know it!), but "is what you believe." In the words of a former ("Christian") boss of mine: "The most important thing is finding a spirituality that works for you." That, in essence, is a major message of the novel and the movie. The other central message is just as noxious: Christianity is a sham and a lie. Avoid it. Deny it. Mock it.

A piece written while in New Jersey this past Thursday, after traveling to Washington, D.C. and New York City and giving a bazillion radio and television interviews.

What Do Christians Know?

by Carl E. OlsonPosted May 19, 2006

The way some pundits and journalists are telling it, you might think that many Christians are too narrow-minded and emotionally fragile to understand that "The Da Vinci Code" is just a novel (and a movie and an industry). The common theme of more than few recent articles and editorials has been, "Hey, Christians, lighten up and realize that it's only fiction!"

BTW, the original version of my essay included another, final paragraph:

Howard, to be fair, is simply following in the footsteps of Dan Brown. The novelist has had it both ways for three years now, saying his story is based on truth and fact while hiding behind the skirts of fiction whenever criticism comes his way. As G.K. Chesterton noted a century ago, “A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author. It does much more than that, it tells us the truth about its readers; and, oddly enough, it tell us this all the more the more cynical and immoral be the motive of its manufacture.” But, of course, Chesterton was a Christian, so what did he know?

A lady from Eugene, Oregon (where I live), sends along some not-so-positive remarks about this April 23rd article about me that appeared in the local paper, The Register Guard:

The Christian Hoax

Much has been made of “The DaVinci Code”; fiction, not fiction, lies, conjecture, posturing, disapproval from the Roman Catholic Church. Carl Olson’s comments were far from my own reality. (April 23, 2006) “ …anti-Catholicism is the last accepted prejudice”? Really? What then is genocide? How do you explain the failure of levees in New Orleans? Or the placement of landfills and toxic waste dumps? This is not “prejudice” against christians, Carl, this is well-deserved disgust and aversion, a product of sowing and reaping.

There are hints of truth in the DaVinci Code. Don’t let history sway your predisposition. Look at the ‘christian agenda’ for what it truly is.

‘Holy Wars’’? A revealing oxymoron. 400 (four hundred) years of looting were the Crusades. They set the foundation for the standard method of dealing with heathens and heretics. The cost of Christianizing then Europe? Eight million to ten million lives. But it was worth it, as Madeleine Albright would say.

Members of the Cathars and the Knights Tempar were condemned by the ‘church’ as heretics and slaughtered, their lands, titles and holdings absorbed by church and by state. First demonize, then condemn, then demand blood in the name of god. Secure the booty. Make full the holy coffers. Don’t forget to justify the destruction.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church under Pope Innocent IV did adopt and authorize (1252 ACE) torture for ecclesiastical trials. Torture was honed by the Christian crusaders and the Inquisition. Pagan common law opposed torture. What a Christ-like action that was.

For 500 (five hundred) years the Inquisition reigned hellbent, literally; a mockery to justice, fanatical, cruel, arbitrary and invented to force the public to embrace or be exterminated. Noted as ’the most elaborate extortion racket ever devised’, an all-for-profit organization. The first corporation?

Pope Boniface directed the trial of a witch must be conducted ‘simply, without the voice and form of lawyers’. The ‘church’ created the crime and acted judge and jury. Inquisitors were placed entirely above the law. Why does this sound so familiar?

What about the usurping of pagan holy days, like Christmas and Easter? And all of the adopted relics and traditions, like the yule log, gifts, lights, mistletoe, holly, eggs, rabbits, wreaths? Altogether pagan in origin. And if Christmas is about Christ, what are all those ‘Christians’ doing at the mall?

Jesus and Magdalene married? Or not? So what? What if they shared a bed? And had sexual intercourse? And made a family? What difference does it make? And the truth is no one will ever know the truth.

The wrap up at the end of your article/interview is priceless. The perfect black-and-white, with-us –or-against-us, good-versus-evil, patriot-or-terrorist, love-it-or-leave-it divisive spew. You say that if your Jesus Christ is not who you think he is/was “then Christianity is a complete sham….It’s really an all-or-nothing proposition”.

When it comes to the ‘all-or-nothing’ ness of Christianity, I prefer the latter. Christianity unveiled is nothing less than unbridled corruption and insatiable greed, the evolution of hypocrisy. The only consistency in Christianity is the hypocrisy.

Your ‘god’ is not my ‘god’.

Your Jesus is not my Jesus.

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of ‘god’.

Some readers of TDVC (both fans and non-fans) have suggested that the novel is about as ready-made for a movie as can be. I've always disagreed with this notion, believing the novel has far more in common with soap operas than with successful summertime movie fare. Some of the similar elements include: thin characters, laughable dialogue, endless conversations, constant posturing (by characters and novelist), silliness/stupidity, and a complete absence of nuance. Oh -- and the plot is even more thin than the characters, which is saying something. Last summer I was interviewed by The New York Times (for this article) and I said this:

"There's no way you can take out the central point of the novel, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church has done everything in its power, including murdering millions of people, to cover it up," said Carl Olson, co-author of "The Da Vinci Hoax," a book refuting the "The Da Vinci Code." He predicted that many devout people would be offended "unless they make a movie that bears a pale resemblance to the book, in which case they'd have a lot of irritated fans."

Oddly enough, the first reviews of the movie indicate that Ron Howard has apparently achieved something remarkable, if not altogether commendable for a director: he has made a movie that will both irritate fans and bore and confuse non-fans. The Reuters review calls the movie a "bloated puzzle" and adds:

Strictly as a movie and ignoring the current swirl of controversy no amount of studio money could ever buy, the Ron Howard-directed film features one of Tom Hanks' more remote, even wooden performances in a role that admittedly demands all the wrong sort of things from a thriller protagonist; an only slightly more animated performance from his French co-star, Audrey Tautou; and polished Hollywood production values where camera cranes sweep viewers up to God-like points of view and famous locations and deliciously sinister interiors heighten tension where the movie threatens to turn into a historical treatise.

The movie really only catches fire at the midway point, when Ian McKellen hobbles on the scene as the story's Sphinx-like Sir Leigh Teabing. Here is the one actor having fun with his role and playing a character rather than a piece to a puzzle.

True believers and those who want to understand what all the fuss is about will jam cinemas worldwide in the coming weeks in sufficient numbers so as to fulfill probably even the most optimistic projections of Sony execs. But the movie is so drenched in dialogue musing over arcane mythological and historical lore and scenes grow so static that even camera movement can't disguise the dramatic inertia. Such sins could cut into those rosy projections.

Taking its cue from the book, conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is depicted as a murderous and power-crazed organisation.

But Howard, who won an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind, faced a tougher challenge in translating Brown's narrative to the big screen. And his fondness for historic flashbacks and other gimmicks to tell the story border on patronising.

They are too obviously used to help gel together the two-and-a-half hour screenplay whose storyline may prove confusing for those who have not read the book.

One of the book's triumphs is the way in which it allows the reader to solve the clues before Langdon and Neveu, giving the reader a smug satisfaction at their own perceived intelligence.

The film does not allow the same satisfaction, but instead must join protagonists Langdon and Neveu on their convoluted journey.

Briggs is quite right in describing the "books' triumph", since the novel has certainly been, for many readers, a revelatory text filled with secret knowledge and exciting ideas (How about it, National Geographic? Have a cover with the DVC displayed and the headline: "The Gospel of Dan Brown," Discovered in 2003. Is it true?). But it appears that the movie is actually revealing something else: that the novel is a pile of pseudo-intellectual blatherings that lacks both historical veracity and logical coherence. Of course, we've been saying that all along. But it's rather touching that Sony, Ron Howard, and Co. would spend tens of millions of dollars to prove our point. For the record, I'll be seeing the movie this Friday night and hope to write a few thoughts here soon thereafter.

... The Da Vinci Hoax. The May 22, 2006, feature article, "Debating Da Vinci," was written by Jeffery L. Sheler, who quotes from our book a couple of times in the course of addressing some of TDVC's main assertions. Entire article is available online here.